Inauthentıc Responses in the Plays of Harold Pinter and Edward Albee
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Linguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 198-205, 2014 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189/lls.2014.020704
Inauthentıc Responses in the Plays of Harold Pinter
and Edward Albee
Merve Cavus
Department of Basic English, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara
*Corresponding Author: mervecavush@gmail.com
Copyright © 2014 Horizon Research Publishing All rights reserved. .
Abstract This paper carries out a comparative analysis courage and strength to confront with the meaninglessness of
of Harold Pinter’s The Birthday Party and Edward Albee’s human existence, emptiness of the universe and lack of
The Zoo Story. It achieves this by exploring how the justification for subjective choices, willingness to make
dramatic structure, characterization, and use of language in choices in order to have value and meaning in a contingent
these plays display the playwrights’ tendency to employ and unpredictable universe, and finally responsibility for
similar themes of existentialist philosophy and man’s these choices. When contingency and isolation cause
self-quest in the face of existential anxiety and despair. Man overwhelming anxiety, man shows inauthentic responses in
shows a variety of inauthentic responses in order to escape order to protect himself from the disappointing effects of his
the lack of meaning in life, freedom to choose and burden of isolated and guideless situation in an insecure and
responsibility. The aim of this study is to discuss these malevolent universe. Through inauthentic responses, man
inauthentic responses given by the characters in the above tends to avoid his sense of vulnerability and powerlessness
mentioned plays. by controlling the perceived source of distress in the outside
world. He shows reaction within a tendency of overt hostility
Keywords Existentialism, Inauthentic, Authentic, against the threatening outside world. In other words, he
Anxiety projects his anxieties onto external threats. In this way, he
tries to escape the meaningless and insecure world by
destroying, manipulating and dominating the selves around
him.
1. Introduction
According to existentialism, which emerged as a 2. Forms of Inauthentic Responses in
philosophical movement giving voice to modern man’s Pinter’s Plays
reaction to the sense of overwhelming meaninglessness and
absurdity of life, each individual finds himself separate from Pinter is preoccupied with the power relations among
the outer world and his fellow human beings. He does not see individuals in a hostile universe which renders them
his existence as necessary as he cannot see the totality. This powerless and helpless. One of the central themes of his
leads to anguish of being. In anguish of being, man sees no plays is the dominant and subservient relationships.
meaningful relationship between his existence and the world. According to Prentice, the urge in the dominant/subservient
As nothing is certain, man feels anxious about his relationship is one character’s struggle to assert dominance
predicament in the universe which is unknown to him and of over another[2]. Assertion of control and dominance are
which he is no longer a part. inauthentic responses given by Pinter’s characters to ensure
Heidegger, whose philosophy will be the focal point in survival in the face of unspecified menace which springs
this study, introduces two states of being: authentic being from their insecure identity and to appease existential
and inauthentic being. According to him, each human being anxiety caused by their sense of meaninglessness of
is characterized by individuality. “This individuality is not a existence. In Pinter’s plays, since the characters feel insecure,
static quality of a person, but is a potentiality, a set of they are shown in a constant struggle to assert their identity
possibilities for every individual […] Among these and give meaning to their existence. They feel the need to
possibilities are two kinds, namely the possibilities of insist on the sovereignty over what they possess by
authentic and of inauthentic existence”[24]. Heidegger dominating others. Overpowering others is a way of feeling
claims that one can achieve authentic self by realizing his confident about themselves and their surroundings.
possibilities and shaping his own values and meaning in life. “Characters are frequently acting in self-defense or are
However, it is not easy to attain authenticity as it needs seeking to dominate (which is another form ofLinguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 198-205, 2014 199
self-defense)”[18]. Thus, Pinter’s plays are like battlefields an outside world with which Stanley has for years no
where each character is on guard to fight against the other. contact”[16]. For what purpose these intruders are coming
Assertion of power shows itself in language games through and why Stanley is so alarmed at their arrival remain elusive.
which characters are engaged in overly critical Stanley’s internal psychological disturbance is manifested in
communication or in physical violence. Pinter himself violent utterances to Meg, which suggests his inauthentic
acknowledges that “the world is a pretty violent place” and response to insecurity. He projects his troubled mind and
that violence “is really an expression of the question of anxiety by cruelly suggesting that two men in a van are
dominance and subservience” (qtd. in[21]). It originates in coming to take her away in a wheelbarrow. The characters’
man’s sense of powerlessness and insecurity of his autonomy fear of the world outside the room is explained by Pinter as
and desire for maintaining respect and position in the world. “we are all in this, all in a room, and outside is a world [...]
which is most inexplicable and frightening, curious and
alarming”[11]. The frightening possibility of an intrusion is
2.1. The Birthday Party
an instrument at their hands to dominate each other through
In The Birthday Party, inauthentic responses to existential fear and intimidation. As Sartre states, “the fact of the other
anxiety and despair generally take the form of assaults. The is incontestable, and touches me to the heart. I realize him
play is set in a living room of a boarding house owned by through uneasiness; through him I feel myself perpetually in
Meg and Petey whose only boarder is Stanley Webber. There danger”[15] Pinter’s characters are overwhelmed by the
is not much information about Stanley’s past and presence of the other as a threat to their identity, autonomy
background except for his reference to his career as a pianist, and existence.
which creates a mystery and ambiguity in the play. Stanley Stanley’s anxiety increases so much with the arrival of
Webber protects himself from the threatening outside world Goldberg and McCann that he slips off to avoid them. They
as he barely goes outside the house and lives an idle life have come to do a job which is not explained, which denotes
without any responsibility to carry out. Meg treats him like ambiguity. According to Misra, Goldberg and McCann act as
his son and shows him love and affection; whereas, Stanley “the agents of violence” and “media for conjuring the sense
is rude and critical. He teases her by calling her a bad wife, or of fear and incertitude” both of which relate to existential
expressing his dissatisfaction with the breakfast she has anxiety the most fundamental form of which is man’s
prepared. He believes that he has the right to be aggressive to awareness of the threat of annihilation of his self (66).
Meg as “he knows how much she wants him to be pleased Goldberg and McCann are represented as destructive and
with her”[18]. He criticizes her inadequacy as a housewife: dominating powers which shatter individual’s autonomy and
remove him from his shelter as Pinter himself expresses in
MEG. It’s good tea. Good strong tea his poem “A View of the Party”: “Allied in their theme /They
STANLEY. This isn’t tea. It’s gravy! imposed upon the room/ A dislocation and doom.” (qtd.
MEG. It’s not. in[23])
STANLEY. Get out of it. You succulent old washing bag. Stanley’s secluded place is disturbed and he is forced into
(Birthday 12) a circumstance that he cannot avoid people. In order to
Stanley needs to project his inner disturbances and own protect himself from the upcoming threats, he resorts to
inadequacy onto Meg. This urge to externalize his inner manipulation and domination, again by using language, this
insecurities turns Meg into an object of domination and time not to attack but to pacify. First, he tries to establish
manipulation. Moreover, Stanley releases his repressed closeness with McCann to win him by referring to his
disappointment against Meg. Whether it is pure fantasy or it admiration of McCann’s roots: “I know Ireland very well […]
has some basis in reality, he refers to his old job as a pianist I love that country and I admire and trust its people”
and tells how they shut down the place where he was (Birthday 36). Next, he tries to form an alliance with him,
supposed to have his next concert. To hide his vulnerability whispering and advancing: “Has he told you anything? Do
and disappointment in life is he insults her: “Look at her. you know what you’re here for? Tell me. You needn’t be
You’re just an old piece of rock cake, aren’t you? That’s frightened of me.” (Birthday 36). What he is doing is
what you are, aren’t you?” (Birthday 17). To feed his ego he triggering McCann’s insecurity and thus rendering him
threatens her by leaving the house mentioning a supposed powerless. In fact, McCann does not feel secure either and
job offer. He knows that it will upset Meg, who feels expresses it to Goldberg as: “I don’t know, Nat. I’m just all
dependent on him to show motherly affection and ease the right once I know what I’m doing. When I know what I’m
pain of loneliness. Stanley feels secure by dominating, doing, I’m all right” (Birthday 23).
controlling and manipulating her with his threats and insults. As a final strategy, to control Goldberg and McCann
When Meg announces that two men will come to the Stanley exhibits hostility. He claims his power against them:
house to stay for a couple of nights, Stanley is alarmed at the “Let me –just make this clear. You don’t bother me. To me,
news. He starts to pace up and down the room and insists that you’re nothing but a dirty joke […] So why don’t you just go,
they are not coming. He is nervous about the arrival of the without any more fuss?” (Birthday 39). Stanley becomes
unknown intruders since his shelter will be shattered and his more aggressive when he is left alone with Goldberg.
safety will be in danger. “They are intruders, emissaries from STANLEY. [...]You’ll have to find somewhere else200 Inauthentıc Responses in the Plays of Harold Pinter and Edward Albee
GOLDBERG. Are you the manager here? MCCANN. You contaminate womankind. (Birthday
STANLEY. That’s right. 45)
GOLDBERG. Is it a good game? (Birthday 38) […]
However, his manipulating techniques, which work with GOLDBERG. You’re a plague, Webber. You’re an
Meg, fail and he recoils. After a battle for domination overthrow.
regarding who will sit down, Stanley is forced to sit down MCCANN: You’re what’s left! (Birthday 46)
and rendered as a victim by Goldberg and McCann, who start By attacking his human dignity, they aim at his
to cross-examine him. They ask meaningless and psychological breakdown. They express their contempt of
contradictory questions one after another, not to elicit any him, curse him, and even threaten his identity and very
answer but to confuse and overwhelm him: existence. Goldberg states: “What makes you think you exist?
[…] You’re dead. You can’t live, you can’t think, you can’t
GOLDBERG. What have you done with your wife?
love. You’re dead. You’re a plague gone bad. There’s no
MCCANN. He’s killed his wife?
juice in you. You’re nothing but an odour!” (Birthday 46).
GOLDBERG. Why did you kill your wife?
They increase the existential anxiety that resides in Stanley
[…]
indicating that he does not exist even in a world where man
GOLDBERG. Why did you never get married?
desperately tries to prove and ensure his existence.
MCCANN. She was waiting at the porch.
Goldberg and McCann’s sadistic impulses motivate them
GOLDBERG. You skeddadled from the wedding.
to have absolute and unrestricted power over Stanley.
[…]
Fromm claims that there is dependence on the object of
GOLDBERG. Webber! Why did you change your
sadism since one’s “own feeling of strength is rooted in the
name? (Birthday 43-44)
fact that he is the master over someone”[13]. Goldberg and
This verbal bombardment aims to evoke sense of guilt in McCann want to control Stanley’s identity, gain power over
Stanley and make him inarticulate and defenseless. They his thoughts and freedom so that they can go on ensuring
accuse him of killing his wife, not getting married, being a their power, their own identity and masking their own
traitor, or not taking a bath. “The isolated [is] individual insecurities. They regard other people as nothing but
trapped in a hostile world, a fear of authority, a sense of instruments to manipulate and control. This attitude towards
guilt ... and the expectation of punishment”[20]. Their attack the world and other human beings can be considered an
through unceasing questions allows Stanley no opportunity inauthentic response since as Barnes points out, “my refusal
to respond and defend himself so that they can dominate him to see the Other as a subject means that I must surely fail to
with groundless accusations and language games. realize many of my own potentials” (118). The mainspring of
In Pinter’s plays, language is shown not as a means for this attitude resides in man’s desire to feel secure by making
communication, but domination and violence. His characters others wholly objects which cannot stand as a threat. Man
“are mostly using language for purposes of self-defence or destroys others so that the world ceases to be threatening.
domination, which points to their essential insecurity and That is, he hopes to minimize uncertainty and existential
isolation”[18]. Goldberg is supervising the dominating anxiety that accompanies it.
language games. He is displayed as a secure, outgoing and Meg tells Goldberg that today is Stanley’s birthday. Upon
cheerful man who has high self-confidence. However, this, Goldberg proposes a party for him. After the
McCann is more silent, introvert and nervous, which is interrogation, they move on with Stanley’s birthday party.
indicated in the scene where he tears the newspaper into even During the party Stanley is silent. In other words, he is
pieces. His act suggests his destructive attitude towards the “emptied of his own language, rendered speechless”[16].
world and his desire to destroy the selves around him in order They play blind man’s buff at the party. The game leaves
to feel secure. “The tactic employed by McCann is to behave Stanley bereft of sight, which again turns him into a victim.
as if nothing is untoward”[18]. Although they are powerful, Blindfolded Stanley first begins to strangle Meg and then
both Goldberg and McCann are playthings in the hands of during the blackout, tries to rape Lulu, their neighbour.
authorial forces, and they are themselves insecure. Their When Goldberg and McCann advance upon him, he “begins
mindless violence indicates that they are “lacking in power to giggle. GOLDBERG and MCCANN move toward him. He
but incessantly attempting to obtain it”[14] backs, giggling the torch on his face” (Birthday 59). His
Goldberg and McCann make use of clichéd tactics in all of response to his desperate and helpless situation is violence.
their questions and accusations during the interrogation, and His violence and giggling suggest both his inability to
“they seem to be gradually overtaken by the verbal terrorism sustain his equilibrium in the face of overwhelming anxiety
which is the source of their power”[16]. They competently and his need to project his anxiety by exhibiting aggressive,
use language to get what they want, and their superior brutal and violent acts and thus to victimize others.
control over language makes Stanley inarticulate and a At the end of the interrogation and the brainwashing
victim to be manipulated and dominated. They verbally session, Stanley’s freedom is terminated and his
attack Stanley’s dignity and degrade his self-value: individuality is destroyed. Stanley will be “re-oriented”,
GOLDBERG. You stuff yourself with dry toast. “adjusted” and “integrated” as Goldberg claims (Birthday
77-76). He appears as a speechless and deranged person.Linguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 198-205, 2014 201
“[I]n the realm of inauthenticity, everyone is the other and no bravado suggests the sense of insecurity and unwillingness
one is himself”[15]. for confrontation. Albee’s drama is similar to Pinter’s
GOLDBERG. You’ll be able to make or break, Stan. dramatic world in the sense that they both introduce violence,
By my life. Well what do you say? destruction and domination as defensive behaviors used in
STANLEY. Stanley concentrates, his mouth opens, he order to abstain from authentic acknowledgement of life.
attempts to speak, fails and emits sounds from his
throat. Uh-gug...uh-gug...eeehhh-gag....(On the 3.1. The Zoo Story
breath.) Caahh...caahh... (Birthday 78)
When The Zoo Story opens, on a park bench in New
Stanley is in a catatonic state; however, he still attempts to York’s Central Park sits Peter, an editor reading a book. He
resist the domination and usurpation. As Pinter is a happy conformist with a nuclear family and a good
acknowledges in a letter, “In the rattle in his throat Stanley income. He is disturbed by an intruder, Jerry who appears all
approximates nearest to the true nature of himself than ever of a sudden and tries to communicate with him by abruptly
before and certainly ever after. But it’s late .Late in the day. stating that he has been to the zoo. As the play develops,
He can go no further” (qtd. in[23]). Thus, a relationship can Jerry’s attempt to make contact with Peter takes various
be established between the title of the play and Stanley’s forms; questions are followed by personal confessions,
predicament. His birthday party signifies his rebirth as a torturing remarks leave their places to physical attacks, all of
member of the conformist society who is not allowed to think which end with the murder/suicide of Jerry who throws
and act differently. “When Stanley appears in the last act, the himself on the knife held by Peter.
very sight of him indicates the intruders’ triumph and his Jerry, in his late thirties, is carelessly dressed and growing
conformity. He is as immaculate as a corpse and walks like a fat. According to stage directions, “his fall from physical
zombie”[10]. Goldberg states that Stanley is suffering from a grace should not suggest debauchery; he has, to come closest
nervous breakdown, they will take him to Monty, and he will to it, a great weariness”[1]. He is depicted as a drained
be assumingly taken care of. Petey, who is not there during person who is disgusted with his own existence and the
the party, is helpless in the face of their usurpation of Stanley. alienation that the universe thrusts upon him. With his
His last words to Stanley are: “Stan, don’t let them tell you weariness and shabbiness, he signifies the dreadful and
what to do!” (80). However, Stanley is already taken over by exhausting aspects of life. Camus states that “weariness
the usurpers and the game is lost as Pinter states in his poem: comes at the end of acts of mechanical life” and he adds that
“Found the game lost and won,/ Meg, all memory “it inaugurates the impulse of consciousness” (10). The most
gone/ …/Petey, impotent” (qtd. in[23]). important characteristic of Jerry is that he has the
consciousness of man’s finiteness, his being condemned to
make choices in a contingent world, and the isolated
3. Inauthentic Responses in Edward territories that alienate people from themselves and other
Albee’s Plays human beings. However, Jerry has difficulty in accepting
that predicament; he is shocked and dismayed by the human
Like Pinter, Albee, in his plays, explores modern man’s circumstance. In other words, Jerry is trapped in his own
predicament, and he mostly focuses on the great isolation sense of anguish and cannot set himself free from the
and alienation man suffers from, the lack of communication restrictive bounds of this desperate situation. He is projecting
between an individual and the other members of society. his inner conflicts onto external world; he has the great need
Albee believes that outside forces such as social institutions for relatedness and connection, which results in aggressive
and other people apply pressures on the individual who tries reactions.
to establish and preserve his identity in an uncertain and From the very beginning of the play, Jerry is depicted as
sinister world. Thus, the question of individual identity an intruder who barges into Peter’s petty comfort, which is
becomes central to Albee’s plays as well. His characters reading his book on a park bench. The interaction between
yearn for their existence and identity while they are aware of Peter and Jerry, two people who have never met before, is
its pain which has its mainspring in living in a meaningless initiated due to Jerry’s impulse to make connection with
void. “His fundamental theme is the collapse of someone and tell his story. Jerry attempts to engage Peter in a
communality, the Other as a threat…His subject is loss, conversation without the latter’s consent:
desolation, spiritual depletion”[5]. Albee’s people are JERRY: I’ve been to the zoo. [PETER doesn’t notice.]
overwhelmed by the sense of abandonment and alienation; I said, I’ve been to the zoo. MISTER, I’VE BEEN TO
thus, they show aggressiveness to the indifferent world THE ZOO!”
which isolates and abandons them in a menacing situation. PETER: Hm?What? I’m sorry, were you talking to
Albee shows “the polar opposites of freedom vs. me?
imprisonment, conformity vs. confrontation” (Kolin 18). JERRY: I went to the zoo, and then I walked until I
Closely paralleling Pinter’s characters, his characters’ came here. Have I been walking north?[1]
“verbalization is indeed a response to their terror of a silence
Peter is not sure whether Jerry is addressing to him and
in which the real questions will assert themselves” [5]. Their
does not know how to respond. He is annoyed with the202 Inauthentıc Responses in the Plays of Harold Pinter and Edward Albee
stranger who forces him to react to his invasion and he is I’m sorry. But, you see, your question about the classes
“anxious to get back to his reading”[1]. Jerry, who has not bewildered me.
got any interest in manners and respect in personal space, JERRY: And when you’re bewildered you become
ignores Peter’s need for privacy and goes on disturbing him patronizing?
with his questions. Like Pinter, Albee employs the theme of PETER: I...I don’t express myself too well, sometimes.
menace through the intrusion of an outsider in order to [He attempts a joke on himself.] I’m in publishing, not
unfold the existential threat to one’s existence and security. writing.
Peter wants to protect himself and keep his distance since he JERRY[amused but not at the humour]: So be it. The
does not seek any connection. However, Jerry challenges truth is: I was being patronizing. [1].
Peter’s desire for solitude and reluctance to communicate.
Jerry verbally dominates Peter and makes him subservient
His attitude indicates that he lacks understanding of an
and more reticent. He gains power and control over the
authentic and mutual human relationship which is based on
situation. Peter is exposed to lunatic remarks which are full
reciprocal understanding and respect for others.
of violent elements. When he tells that he has two cats and
Jerry proceeds with his persistent questions on Peter’s
birds at his house, Jerry reveals the violence found within
private life with the compulsion to overshadow his isolation.
him:
However, the communication between them is confined to
superficial interrogation. Peter, who is “bewildered by the JERRY: Do they carry disease? The birds.
seeming lack of communication”, reveals that he is married PETER: I don’t believe so.
JERRY: That’s too bad. If they did you could set them
and has two daughters[1]. Jerry abuses Peter’s self exposure
loose in the house and the cats could eat them and die,
by suggesting his inability to conceive a male child. He
maybe. [1]
mocks and attacks Peter’s masculinity. Most of the time,
Jerry simply ignores Peter’s remarks and fails to These statements imply Jerry’s longing for death, and his
acknowledge his total personality. He confesses that he asks suicidal tendencies find their outlet in violence directed to
these questions because he has the desire to connect with other creatures. Jerry is angry at his powerlessness in front of
a contingent universe; thus, he fancies destruction as a means
someone:
to gain control. He tries to make sense of a senseless world;
JERRY: I don’t talk to many people except to say like: however, he is dependent on another person or creature to
give a beer, or where is the john, or what time does the externalize his anger and aggression while creating his
feature go on, or keep your hands to yourself, buddy. personal meaning.
You know- things like that. The reasons for Jerry’s awful sense of isolation should be
PETER: I must say I don’t …. considered in order to understand his present motives. Jerry
JERRY: But every once in a while I like to talk to is shaken by his realization of the world as a dissonant and
somebody, really talk; like to get to know somebody, chaotic place which desolates people. Charles Lyons claims
know all about him. that “the play assumes the absurdity, the chaos of the human
PETER[lightly laughing, still uncomfortable]: And am condition and its essential loneliness” (qtd. in Bailey
I the guinea pig for today? 31).Although he displays how unsafe he feels at the risk of
JERRY: On a sun-drenched Sunday afternoon like this: overwhelming chaos, he, at the same time, is shaken by the
Who better than a nice married man with two daughters fear of abandonment.
and …uh…a dog?[1]. With the fear of abandonment, Jerry starts telling his
experience with his landlady’s dog to make Peter stay and
Although, Jerry has authentic awareness of his isolation listen to him. He captures Peter’s attention by tempting him
and loneliness, he has inauthentic perception of relatedness with his vivid narration of stories. As the climax of the play,
and connection as he considers Peter as a means to an end. Jerry’s story about the dog has a very important role as Albee
Moreover, when Jerry simply asks quick-fire questions such admits: “I suppose the dog story in The Zoo Story, to a
as: “What do you make?” [1]; “Where do you live?”[1], certain extent, is a microcosm of the play by the fact that
Peter explains how uncomfortable he is with being
people are not communicating ultimately failing and trying
questioned: “It’s that you don’t really carry on a
and failing” (qtd in Bailey 32-33). The dog story, in fact,
conversation; you just ask questions. And I’m ...I’m
illustrates Jerry’s desperate attempt connect with anything
normally ...uh...reticent”[1]. In their interaction, it can be
observed that “the one who can talk fluently imposes his and his ultimate failure. He explains how important any
authority over the one who is reticent or less articulate”[17]. contact is in an alienating world that staves off
Jerry confuses and attacks Peter with his unpredictable communication:
questions; he mocks and frightens him in a patronizing If you can’t deal with people you have to make a start
manner: somewhere. WITH ANIMALS! [Much faster now, and
JERRY: Say, what’s the dividing line between like a conspirator] Don’t you see? A person has to have
upper-middle-class and lower-upper-middle class? some way of dealing with SOMETHING. If not with
PETER: My dear fellow, I... people…SOMETHING. With a bed, with a cockroach,
JERRY: Don’t my dear follow me. with a mirror…no, that’s too hard, that’s one of the last
PETER [unhappily]: Was I patronizing? I believe I was; steps. [1]Linguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 198-205, 2014 203
Jerry’s goal is to make a meaningful contact with anything uses what he has learned from the dog to communicate with a
however small and insignificant the object is. human being, Peter. He hopes that his tactics will work well
Jerry starts to tell his story “[as if reading from a huge in his next endeavor.
billboard]: THE STORY OF JERRY AND THE DOG”[1]. Jerry’s behaviors to the dog are identical with his attitude
Bailey points out that “with his isolation and painful sense of to Peter. First he achieves “a hypnotic effect on Peter” [1],
alienation, Jerry wants his story to make a difference; he and then he exerts his power on him by saying: “I’m here,
wants to earn his marginalized story a memorable place in and I’m not leaving” [1]. Jerry reveals that he is a potential
the larger narrative of society” (32). He wants to fill the threat to Peter and he urges him to confront the threat. Peter
existential void he feels with his stories so that he can reduce wants to leave; Jerry tickles him as a distraction, and he starts
the alienation of his existence. Jerry is wearied because of poking and punching him in the arm, demanding him to
the indifference. His deprivation of relatedness and his move over so that he can sit on the bench, “using the
struggle for demolishing indifference result in extreme acts paradoxical blend of kindness and cruelty he exercised with
of aggression and violence. Before the dog story, he tells the dog” (Kolin 23). He tempts Peter to defend his territory
Peter: “What I am going to tell you has something to do with like he has done with the dog. Jerry finally starts talking
how sometimes it’s necessary to go a long distance out of the about the zoo, which he has been postponing from the start.
way in order to come back a short distance correctly”[1]. He states that he went to the zoo “to find out more about the
Jerry is ready to go out of his way and to perform vicious acts way people exist with animals, and the way animals exist
to create meaning, to act upon something and to provoke with each other, and with people too” [1]. Jerry points out the
confrontation at the end. He complains about the separation of animals from each other and people. He
indifference of the universe and people: “Animals are suggests that people are separated from each other like the
indifferent to me …like people. [He smiles slightly]…most animals in cages. In that sense, there is a parallelism between
of the time. But this dog wasn’t indifferent. From the Jerry’s zoo story and Albee’s The Zoo Story. Through Jerry’s
beginning he’d snarl and then go for me, to get one of my story, Albee explores the loss of communication, the
legs”[1]. Jerry made up his mind; he would either “kill the difficulty of establishing human contact and man’s growing
dog with kindness, and if that doesn’t work”, he would just isolation.
kill him[1]. He could not bear the idea that the dog did not As Jerry describes the isolating conditions at the zoo, he
love him. He decided to answer violence with violence if gradually pushes Peter off the bench, “forcing him literally
kindness would not work. He wanted to prove the dog that he and in every other sense off balance”[19]. He wants Peter to
was there to be loved and gave it a bag of hamburgers. The break through the civilized manners and pick up an
dog ate the hamburgers but then again it snarled at him. Jerry animalistic and brutal fight. He attacks his self-respect by
was hurt and offended because his sense of loneliness was treating him as a child:
augmented. As a hostile and violent respond, he poisoned the JERRY: I said I want this bench, and I’m going to have
dog with the rat poison he put in the hamburgers. it. Now get over there.
The main purpose of Jerry was not to kill the dog, but to PETER: People can’t have everything they want. You
provoke a response. He confesses to Peter: “I wanted the dog should know that; it’s a rule; people can have some of
to live so that I could see what our new relationship might the things they want, but they can’t have everything.
come to”[1]. He was curious about whether they would be JERRY [laughs]: Imbecile! You’re slow-witted!
friends or enemies because in either way he would make a PETER: Stop that!
connection which is preferable to indifference. However, he JERRY: You’re a vegetable! Go lie down on the ground.
failed as he discloses to Peter: “I had tried to love, and I had [1]
tried to kill, and both had been unsuccessful by
Jerry knows that this bench is important for Peter since he
themselves”[1]. Jerry describes the current relationship with has “hours of great pleasure, great satisfaction, right here”
the dog as: “Whenever the dog and I see each other we both [1]. That is why he provokes Peter through usurpation. After
stop where we are. We regard each other with a mixture of a long argument which revolves around whose bench it is,
sadness and suspicion, and then we feign indifference […] Jerry exerts physical violence on Peter by slapping him. He
We neither love nor hurt because we do not try to reach each forces Peter into a duel for the bench, attacking his identity
other”[1]. His attempts ended in indifference which he tries and masculinity: “You fight, you miserable bastard; fight for
to escape in the first place. The Zoo Story, as Esslin suggests, that bench…fight for your manhood, you pathetic little
displays “an outsider’s inability to establish genuine contact vegetable [Spits on Peter’s face ] You couldn’t even get your
with a dog, let alone any human being” [11]. wife with a male child” [1]. As in Pinter’s plays, in The Zoo
Jerry has learned something from that experience; Story, the desire for territorial security is identical with
“ neither kindness nor cruelty by themselves, independent of maintaining personal autonomy and self-respect. Jerry tries
each other, creates any effect beyond themselves; and […] to reveal the savage in Peter in order to prove his idea that all
the two combined, together, at the same time, are the humans are territorial animals which cling to their isolated
teaching emotion”[1]. He exerts kindness and cruelty on spaces, which mean certainty for them.
other people to shock them out of their senses and apathy. He Jerry takes out an ugly-looking knife and tosses it at204 Inauthentıc Responses in the Plays of Harold Pinter and Edward Albee
Peter’s feet. Infuriated and threatened, Peter picks up the disintegration, and the fear of confrontation with one’s self.
knife for self-preservation against the raving lunatic who This sense of helplessness and impotence triggers their need
threatens him. Jerry traps Peter in a situation where he cannot to protect themselves through inauthentic responses which
get away as he is forced to exert his will and power. For the help them confirm their existence and dispel the profound
conclusion of the play, Albee depicts a shocking and violent sense of powerlessness. Both playwrights portray the
scene. Jerry impales himself on the knife at the end of Peter’s destruction of the illusory sense of stability and security by
still firm arm and falls on the ground. Jerry suggests that he introducing menace against which the characters start a
has planned all this just to end his life in an unforgettable territorial struggle, a struggle for power which is
way. Without this violent action, Jerry’s existence will communicated through attempts of domination,
remain insignificant and unrecognized. Jerry asserts this aggressiveness and manipulation that can be defined as
desire for taking attention: “And now I’ll tell you what inauthentic responses. Another similarity between Pinter’s
happened at the zoo. I think …I think this is what happened and Albee’s drama is that language is not presented as a
means of communication but as a weapon to assert power,
at the zoo […] And now you know what you’ll see in your
which points to the characters’ insecurity and isolation.
TV” [1]. He anticipates that his death, consequently his story,
In addition to similarities, there are also differences
will take the attention of media and it will be historicized.
between Pinter and Albee in finding an expression for man’s
The final image of Jerry’s brutal death and his scream are
existential dilemma. Although they both believe that
likened to “the sound of an infuriated and fatally wounded
existential redemption and authentic existence are possible
animal” [1]. As Jerry reveals the savage in him, he
through man’s confrontation with the nature of his own
appreciates Peter’s confrontation too: “It is alright, you’re an
being and his existential choices, Albee seems to depict a
animal. You’re an animal, too.” [1]. As long as there is more hopeful and affirmative vision of man’s existential
confrontation, Jerry does not care the means to the end. He predicament. In Pinter’s The Birthday Party, the characters,
wants the dog and Peter to understand his motives; however, especially Stanley, remain trapped in the midst of absurdity
both the dog and Peter act not with empathy but with the and they alienate themselves from existential growth due to
desire to protect their territory, which is an animalistic their preoccupation with power relations. There is complete
instinct. destruction and disintegration without any hope and quest for
It can be claimed that Jerry has awakened from the authentic existence. However, in Albee’s drama, certain
ordinary trance of life; he has the consciousness of man’s characters experience a momentary and painful
inescapable mortality and the deadening isolation. “Because consciousness of their false security. In The Zoo Story, Jerry
life is lonely and death inevitable, Jerry seeks to master them engages in a confrontation with the conflict in human
in a single deed of ambiguous suicide-murder”[9]. Camus relationships and man’s need to establish authentic
comments on suicide as: “Dying voluntarily implies that you relationships, which can be observed in the dog story.
have recognized the ridiculous character of meaningless life,
the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane
character of that daily agitation and the uselessness of
suffering” (86). In terms of confronting death, Jerry may be
defined as an authentic character since he has overcome the
REFERENCES
anxiety of death “in which our ontic self-affirmation is [1] Albee, Edward. “The Zoo Story”. The Collected Plays of
threatened by non-being” [7]. He has made a free choice to Edward Albee. New York: Overlook Press, 2004.
end his life and his agitation. However, he has betrayed his [2] Pinter, Harold. “The Birthday Party”. Plays One. London:
own existence in the sense that he has abandoned his Faber and Faber, 1996.
responsibility and opportunity to create himself. As one of
[3] Bailey, L. M.S. “Absurdly American: Rediscovering the
the requirements of authentic existence, even in the face of Representation of Violence in The Zoo Story”. Edward Albee:
contingency of life, human beings are expected to assert their A Casebook. Ed. Bruce Mann. Routledge, 2003.
freedom by passionate commitment to life which determines
the actual meaning of life. “The legitimate existentialist view [4] Barnes, Hazel E. Humanistic Existentialism: The Literature
of Possibility. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1959.
holds that life may be meaningful […] only if one is willing
to engage in action where everything is at stake and without [5] Bigsby, Christophe. A Critical Introduction to
any guarantee either of outcome or of any essential rightness” Twentieth-Century American Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982.
[4]. Jerry cannot recover from the sense of helplessness and
powerlessness and he is overtaken by the urge to put an end [6] ---. Modern American Drama, 1945-2000. Cambridge:
to his agitation through death. Cambridge U.P., 2000.
4. Conclusions [7] Bugental, J.F.T. The Search for Authenticity. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
The characters in The Birthday Party and The Zoo Story
are imprisoned in the midst of insignificancy and finiteness [8] Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays.
Trans. Justin O’Brien. New York: Random House, 1995.
of their existence, the threat of dispossession andLinguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 198-205, 2014 205
[9] Cohn, Ruby. “Edward Albee”. Pamphlets on American Delhi: Creative, 1992.
Writers, No. 77. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1969. [18] Nailsmith, Bill. Harold Pinter: The Caretaker, The Birthday
Party, The Homecoming. London:Faber and Faber Limited.
[10] Dukore, B.F. Harold Pinter. London & Hong 2000.
Kong:Macmillian, 1988.
[19] Paolucci, Anne. From Tension to Tonic: The Plays of Edward
[11] Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. 3rd ed. New York: Albee. Washington: The Bagehot Council, 2000.
Vintage Books, 2004.
[20] Peacock, Keith D. Harold Pinter and The New British
[12] ---. Pinter the Playwright. London: Eyre Methuen, 1970. Theatre. London: Greenwood Press, 1997.
[13] Fromm, Erich. The Fear of Freedom. London: Routledge,
[21] Prentice, Penelope. Harold Pinter: Life, Work and Criticism.
2001.
Fredericton:York Press LTD., 1991.
[14] Golomb. Jacob. In Search of Authenticity: From Kierkegaard
to Camus. London: Routledge, 1995. [22] Sartre, Jean P. Being and Nothingness. Trans. Hazel E.Barnes.
London: Routledge, 2003.
[15] Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John MacQuarrie
and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper, 1962. [23] Scott, Michael, ed. Harold Pinter: The Birthday Party, The
Caretaker, The Homecoming: A Casebook. Basingstoke:
[16] Malkin, Jeanette R. Verbal Violence in Contemporary Drama. Macmillan, 1986
Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1992.
[24] Warnock, Mary. Existentialism. London: Oxford University
[17] Misra, Chittaranjan. Harold Pinter: The Dramatist. New Press, 1970.You can also read
